The Clinton-Pelosi Fault Line (Jim VandeHei)

comment: I can't stand VandeHei, but I thought this was worth posting and discussing..

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the two most prominent women in American politics today — powerfully united by intense disdain for George Bush’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

The Democratic antipathy toward Bush, however, disguises a variety of tensions and cracks that could grow in the months ahead if Clinton becomes her party’s nominee, and could become even more interesting if there is another Clinton administration in January 2009.

Clinton’s and Pelosi’s differences of detail cumulatively add up to something large — two distinct strands of thinking about where threats to U.S. national security lie and how aggressive to be in confronting them.

Liberal Democrats will have to get over it: Clinton is an authentic hawk. Her support for the Iraq war resolution five years ago this month, whether motivated by politics or principle or some of both, was not an aberration. Nor is her tough talk against Iran.

Assuming she wraps up the Democratic nomination over the next couple of months, she will almost certainly emphasize these interventionist views.

The temptation for many commentators has been to dismiss Pelosi’s ventures into foreign policy as blunderbuss moves by a new speaker unseasoned on the world stage. She was hammered for her visit to Syria earlier this year to talk peace. She was recently forced by her own members to surrender on the “Armenian Genocide” resolution after Turkey, a U.S. ally with a critical supply line to Iraq, re-called its ambassador in protest.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6541.html

It is not a question of "electability" it is a question of leadership and values. HRC does not reflect the values I believe the Democratic party stands for.